2d 61
Unpublished Disposition
further questions on the subject and informed the North Carolina Veterinarian
that all government agents were forbidden to come on his property, if they
came to interview him concerning the subject.
2
In the ensuing conversation, Rushing, who asserted that he could not read the
identification tendered by Eatmon because he did not have his glasses on,
blurted out: "I am with the mob and killed seven people and have never been
tried yet. You want to come back with something else now." When Eppley
stated that he did not have a gun, Rushing replied that Eppley did not have to be
armed to get his head blown off. Eventually, after Rushing calmed down, the
agents believed they could depart, and did so.
Rushing was indicted two days later for interfering with a federal employee in
violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 111 (1984). The indictment further charged that the
violation had involved the use of a deadly and dangerous weapon, which
enhanced the possible term of imprisonment from three to ten years. 1
The jury, at the conclusion of the evidence, found Rushing guilty of interfering
with Eppley, a federal employee, while he was performing official duties. The
jury acquitted Rushing of using a deadly or dangerous weapon in the course of
his interference with Eppley. The conviction amounted to a felony, prohibiting
Rushing's possession or ownership of a rifle. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(g). The
However, the matter is not quite so simple to resolve. The elements of the
crime of which Rushing was acquitted do not correspond precisely with the
factors listed under the applicable guidelines section. The sentencing guidelines
provided in Sec. 2A2.2 deal with an aggravated assault, including one involving
the use of a deadly and dangerous weapon. Section 2A2.3 deals with a minor
assault, which is defined as a misdemeanor assault or a felonious assault not
covered by Sec. 2A2.2. For the former, the sentencing guideline comes to
twenty-one to twenty-seven months and the sentence imposed was at the least
onerous level, namely, twenty-one months. The minor assault under guideline
Sec. 2A2.3 would work out to one month's imprisonment.
It is a consideration worthy of note that the jury did not by its acquittal establish
that Rushing did not use a deadly and dangerous weapon. It only determined
that there had not been proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he had used a
deadly and dangerous weapon. That result may in large part have been
attributable to a suspect instruction that the unloaded status of the weapon
rendered it not dangerous, apparently regardless of whether Eppley and Eatmon
were aware that such was the case. In all events, the proof beyond a reasonable
doubt requirement does not extend to circumstances taken into account for
sentencing purposes. McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 84 (1986).
10
The conduct of Rushing amply supports a conclusion that we are not here
dealing with a minor assault. Even if the jury's finding is given the effect
Rushing would like to ascribe to it, or if the Commentary to the sentencing
guidelines is given effect that an intent merely to frighten is insufficient to
constitute an assault as aggravated, acquittal or absence of one form of
aggravated offense does not convert the assault for which Rushing has been
convicted to a simple, minor one. The assault might still be one falling under
the language of Sec. 2A2.2, despite 1) the acquittal for the greater offense, and
2) a conclusion that Rushing's intent was to frighten. There was here present
more than an intent merely to frighten. Rushing's behavior, with or without a
loaded gun, was calculated to restrain and terrorize the government agents,
constituting the felony offense of kidnapping under North Carolina law.
N.C.Gen.Stat. Sec. 14-39(a)(3). He is presently under indictment under state
law for that very crime. Rushing thus qualifies under Guideline Sec. 2A2.2
because the assault involved "a dangerous weapon with ... an intent to commit
another felony," in this instance kidnapping, and the district judge's sentence
was, in the circumstances, correct. His holding of a federal agent at gunpoint,
while threatening death, is aggravated, not minor, assault.
11
12
AFFIRMED.
Under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence the court was justified in
finding the evidence relevant and not to be excluded on grounds of prejudice or
under Rule 404 kept out as character evidence